Appeal No. 97-3295
Application No. 08/424,759
appellant believes his invention to be an improvement. This
reference discloses a body support surface that has contours
to conform to the contours of the body of the user. However,
we do not agree with the examiner that the body support
surface is “inclined” with respect to the planar surface that
it is to rest upon, as required by the claim, considering the
interpretation set forth above which we have held should be
applied to this term.
The rejection of claim 20 fails at this point, for the
deficiency in Groenewald is not alleviated by the teachings of
De Fries. The relevance of this secondary reference extends,
at most, to its teaching of providing a storage compartment in
a head rest/blanket combination useable for reclining on a
beach.
Thus, the combined teachings of Groenewald and De Fries
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter recited in independent claim 20,
and thus the rejection of this claim and claims 6 and 8, which
depend therefrom, cannot be sustained.
Adding Lerman, which is cited for its teaching of
providing a cushion with an opening to function as a handle,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007